9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 360 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 234E - Ex - party order passed by CIT-A - Denial of natural justice - delay in filing 26Q TDS return of Quarter-IV of F.Y. 2012-13 - assessee submitted that since the intimation issued by the A.O. in the present case is for the period prior to 01.06.2015, therefore, the same is beyond the scope of adjustment provided under section 200A of the I.T. Act - HELD THAT - CIT(A) has issued a notice of hearing on 20.03.2018 and decided the appeal on 26.03.2018 in the ex-parte order passed by her due to non-appearance of the assessee. It is the submission of Assessee that notice of hearing was received by the assessee on 22.03.2018. It appears from the order of the Ld. CIT(A) that she has given only one opportunity to the assessee - we find merit in the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee that no proper opportunity has been granted - we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case - Assessee appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues:
1. Imposition of late filing fee under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Validity of fee under section 234E before 01.06.2015. 3. Opportunity granted by the Ld. CIT(A) to the assessee. Issue 1: Imposition of late filing fee under section 234E: The Assessee filed appeals against separate orders relating to A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15. The issue revolved around the imposition of a fine fee of ?10,722 under section 234E for a delay in filing the 26Q TDS return. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in an ex-parte order due to the non-appearance of the Assessee. The Assessee contended that the notice of hearing was received after the fixed date, preventing their appearance. The Assessee argued that the fee imposed was not valid as it was prior to 01.06.2015, citing judicial pronouncements. The Ld. D.R. supported the order, emphasizing the charging provision of section 234E. The Tribunal found merit in the Assessee's argument regarding lack of proper opportunity granted by the Ld. CIT(A) and restored the issue for reevaluation. Issue 2: Validity of fee under section 234E before 01.06.2015: The Assessee challenged the validity of the fee under section 234E before 01.06.2015, citing judicial decisions. The Ld. D.R. argued that section 234E was a charging provision and could be levied even before the introduction of section 200A. Referring to the case of Rajesh Kourani vs. Union of India, the Ld. D.R. highlighted that various High Courts upheld the constitutional validity of section 234E. The Tribunal acknowledged the arguments but focused on the procedural aspect, directing the Ld. CIT(A) to grant the Assessee another opportunity for presenting their case. Issue 3: Opportunity granted by the Ld. CIT(A) to the assessee: The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) provided only one opportunity to the Assessee, leading to a lack of proper hearing. Considering the facts and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the issue to the Ld. CIT(A) for a reevaluation with a direction to grant the Assessee another opportunity to present their case without seeking adjournment. The Tribunal allowed the Assessee's grounds for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of a fair hearing process. In conclusion, the Tribunal addressed the issues of imposition of late filing fee under section 234E, the validity of the fee before 01.06.2015, and the opportunity granted by the Ld. CIT(A) to the Assessee. The Tribunal found procedural lapses in the hearing process and directed a reevaluation with proper opportunity granted to the Assessee for presenting their case effectively.
|
